Andhra Pradesh Court August 1976 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Syed Amanullah HussaIn (Died) and ors. Vs. Rajamma (Died) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-1976
Reported in: AIR1977AP152
1. One, Habeebulla Hussaini died on the 7th February, 1967. At the time of his death he was the owner of a house and some moveable property. The appellants herein filed the suit O. S. 461/69 on the file of the V Additional Judge, City, Civil Court, Hyderabad for recovery of possession of the house and moveable property claiming that he was the brother of the deceased Habeebulla Hussaini and is his sole heir. In the plaint it was stated that defendants 1 and 2 were claiming the properties on the ground that defendant 1 was the wife and defendant 2 is the son of the deceased. The plaintiff contended that the first defendant was only a maid-servant of Habeebulla Hussaini and was living in the same house. She was not the legally wedded wife of Habeebulla Hussaini, nor is the second defendant his son.2. The second defendant filed a written statement contending that though the first defendant was a Hindu Harijan she was converted into Islam and took the name Hussain Bee and married Habeebull...
Madala Chittemma and anr. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-27-1976
Reported in: AIR1976AP423
ORDER1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act , 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The first petitioner is the mother and the second petitioner is her son. They are living separately. They filed separate declaration with regard to their holdings of agricultural land as provided under Section 8 of the Act. One Venaiah was the husband of the first petitioner and the father of the second petitioner. He executed a registered settlement deed dated 15-9-1957 under which he gave life interest to the first petitioner and vested remainder right to the second petitioner in respect of a land of an extent of Ac. 37-85 cents computed as 1.1207 standard holdings. This is the land which is now in possession and enjoyment of the first petitioner for which she filed the declaration. The second petitioner filed his declaration for Ac. 50-51 cents of land computed at 1.0030 standard holdings excluding the ...
The Union of India and anr. Vs. Batchu Subba Rao and Co.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-1976
Reported in: AIR1977AP289
Sambasiva Rao, J.1. A question relating to the meaning and application of S. 76-F of the Indian Railways Act and the burden proof arising out therefrom falls for decision in this Letters Patent Appeal.2. It is against the decision of Sriramulu, j. in S.A. 649 of 1972. While partly allowing the second appeal the learned Judge granted leave.3. The material facts are these: On 28th April 1966, 350 tins of coconut oil were booked from Shertaley out agency on the Southern Railway for delivery at Kakinada Port Railway Station. The consignment was on owner's risk rate. The consignor, after taking a railway receipt in his own name, endorsed it in favour of the plaintiff who paid the value thereof to the Bank. The goods were taken from Shertaley out station and loaded in a railway wagon at Kochin Harbour Railway Station. Before they were loaded in the wagon, the tins were transported from Shertaley on boats. An official of the railway, D.W. 1 looked after the loading. His evidence shows that th...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.S. Gupta
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-1976
Reported in: [1979]119ITR372(AP)
B.J. Divan, C.J. 1. In this case, at the instance of the revenue, thefollowing question has been referred to us by the Income-tax AppellateTribunal for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest amount of Rs. 11,344 constituted part of the actual cost of the plots to the assessee for purposes of determining the capital gains for the assessment year 1967-68 ?' 2. The facts leading to this reference are as follows : We are concerned with the assessment year 1967-68. The assessee is an individual and during the year ending on November 12, 1966, which was the relevant accounting year for the assessment year 1967-68, the assessee sold plots of land to two persons for a total consideration of Rs. 32,100. The assessee had purchased these two plots of land from the Andhra Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 9,138. Before the ITO, the assessee claimed that the cost of the said property to the assessee amounted to Rs. 20,434, viz., the ...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. Khaja Khutabuddinkhan
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-1976
Reported in: [1978]114ITR905(AP)
B. J. Divan, C.J.1. In this reference at the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred to us for our opinion:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the quantum of penalty to be levied should be as per the amended provisions of Section 271(1)(iii) brought into effect from April 1, 1968?'2. In this very case, at the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred for our opinion by the Tribunal :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has jurisdiction to impose penalty?'3. We are now concerned with the assessment year 1967-68, the relevant year of account being the financial year ending on March 31, 1967. The assessee is a doctor in Government service and at the relevant time he was civil assistant surgeon at the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. It appears that, apart from the Government service he was permitted private practice and, thus, besides his salary inc...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Smt. Veeramachaneni Ratnam.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-25-1976
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(AP)0021A
B. J. Divan, C.J. - In this case, at the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred to us for opinion :Q. No. 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of S. 4(1)(a) are applicable to a residential building ?Q. No. 2. If so, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the exemption under S. 5(1)(iv) of the Act ?2. We are concerned, in the instant case, with the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. The assessee is an individual. In making the assessment for wealth-tax in her case the Wealth Tax Officer included the value of certain assets held by her husband in the assessment of the particular assessee under the provisions of S. 4(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act. In particular the value of the house belonging to her husband and financed by the assessee earlier was now included. However, in respect of this very house exemption which was claimed under S. 5(1)(iv) of the Act, was de...
Nooka Agaiah and ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-1976
Reported in: [1977]39STC521(AP)
Sambasiva Rao, J.1. Whether 'atukulu' (parched rice) and 'muramaralu' (puffed rice) are 'rice' within the meaning of entry 66(b) of Schedule I to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is the common question in all these three matters and hence we are disposing them of under a common judgment.2. W.A. No. 1 of 1975 is preferred by the assessee against the order of Chinnappa Reddy, J., dismissing Writ Petition No. 7249 of 1974 in limine. In the petition, the petitioners claimed that sales of parched rice cannot be subjected to the levy of sales tax at rates higher than one per cent. The learned Judge dismissed the petition observing that it was open to the petitioners to raise this question in the assessment proceedings and if aggrieved by any orders of assessment, they can agitate the matter again in revision. In that view, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition, without expressing any opinion on the claim made by the petitioners.3. W...
Musara Narayana Reddy and ors. Vs. Kanakanti Mal Reddy and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1473
ORDERLakshmaiah, J.1. This is a petition filed seeking the quashing of all the proceedings in P. R. C. No. 11 of 1976 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Raichoti.2. One by name Kanakanti Malreddy laid a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chinnamandam, alleging that on 2nd Jan., 1976 the petitioners caused injuries to L. Ws. and took away two bags of groundnut and 4 half bags of paddy. The concerned Sub-Inspector of Police after investigation opined that there was no cognizable case by the Police. Not being satisfied with that, Sri Kanakanti Malreddy laid a private complaint in the Court of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Raichoti, against the petitioners on 12-2-1976 Under Sections 147, 148, 448, 395 and 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. As many as 10 witnesses were cited in the complaint filed by Malreddy. The sworn statement of the complainant on oath was recorded on 23-2-1976 and L. Ws. 1 to 6 and 10 were examined by the Judicial ...
Buddala China Venkata Rao and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-1976
Reported in: [1978]112ITR58(AP); [1978]41STC232(AP)
Raghuvir, J. 1. In R. C. No. 4/75 the following two questions are referred for our opinion :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 51,220 collected by the assessee towards 'rusum' on commis-sion sales of jaggery constitutes an income liable to tax for the assessment year 1969-70? And (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 51,220 is allowable as admissible deduction as sales tax payable by the assessee under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, as amended by the Act 9 of 1970 for the assessment year 1969-70 ?' 2. M/s. Buddala China Venkata Rao & Co., Attili, the assessee, is a firm carrying on business in jaggery and chillies on commission basis. In the financial year 1968-69, the firm collected a sum of Rs. 51,220 as 'rusum' (local equivalent of sales tax). This amount represented the sales tax payable on jaggery transactions of that year. In the case of rusum for chillies, the Income-tax Offic...
B.R.V. Satyanarayana Vs. the State
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1038
Madhusudan Rao J.1. The Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 1975 on the file of the Sessions Court Eluru preferred a revision against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Eluru in the Criminal Appeal. The revision petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court at the admission stage on 11-5-1976 after hearing the petitioner's learned Counsel, Sri M. Dwarkanath, Subsequently, Sri Dwarkanath mentioned before the learned Judge that the order of the Additional Sessions Judge is illegal and that the illegality was not brought to the notice of the Court when the revision petition was argued on 11-5-1976, The learned Judge thereupon cancelled the order dated 11-5-1976 dismissing the revision petition, and directed by his order dated 8-6-1976 that the revision case be admitted on the court's file and that the case should be posted for final hearing after due notice to the Public Prosecutor. The revision case came up for hearing before our learned broth...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »